Gentlemen, draw your swords! Multi-channel or 2-channel?
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
OK. There is nothing that a 2 channel setup can do that a multichannel setup cannot improve upon with the right source material. Forget issues of cost or complexity, it is a matter of physics and physiology. Of course, I do listen to 2channel most of the time because most music sources are 2channel.
Unfortunately, good multichannel music demonstrations are hard to come by and it is also difficult for even serious listeners to disencumber adaptations to a history of 2channel listening. My personal revelation occurred under highly unusual circumstances when Meridian installed and setup a 5.1 system for review in my own listening room and I never turned back.
Unfortunately, good multichannel music demonstrations are hard to come by and it is also difficult for even serious listeners to disencumber adaptations to a history of 2channel listening. My personal revelation occurred under highly unusual circumstances when Meridian installed and setup a 5.1 system for review in my own listening room and I never turned back.
The attraction I have for MC is intellectual. I know that in real life we are surrounded by sound and that discrete channels around us should provide a more realistic reproduction. I must say that so far the best systems I have heard are 2-ch... I have not pursued MC as much as I have 2-ch.
I have not yet heard an all-out assault MC so I must reserve my judgement. it remains that to IMHO the future of music reproduction is in MC.
I have not yet heard an all-out assault MC so I must reserve my judgement. it remains that to IMHO the future of music reproduction is in MC.
Thank you for the warm welcome..
I agree with all your points. I listen predominately (but not exclusively) to classical music, and wherever possible, on M/C SACD. Putting aside any attempt at the semblance of a live performance as regards being 'in' the concert hall, 2 channel arrays or headphones can take you to the heart of the musical 'message', but for the live experience, as you say, it is M/C SACD for me personally.
John.
There is no doubt in my mind that all else being equal a good discrete 5.1 mix will beat a 2.0 mix of the same source material any day of the week. For proof, just compare the 5.1 mix (on a very good MCH system) and 2.0 mix of a 2L nordic sound SACD (or a well recorded concert Blu Ray). The problem is of course all else is rarely if ever equal.
First, most MCH systems do not have surrounds and center channel of the same caliber as the mains.
Second, the quality of 2 channel components commercially available is far better than MCH components. If something like say a Meridian 861v6 represents the state of the art in MCH hardware, you can get far superior 2 channel DACs and preamps.
Third, if - as many audiophiles keep telling us - analog beats digital sources, you can never get a level playing field comparison, because there is no MCH analog.
As s result, the reason the best audio most people have ever heard is 2 channel is strictly related to MCH hardware and media restrictions, not because of inherent superiority of 2 channel.
First, most MCH systems do not have surrounds and center channel of the same caliber as the mains.
Second, the quality of 2 channel components commercially available is far better than MCH components. If something like say a Meridian 861v6 represents the state of the art in MCH hardware, you can get far superior 2 channel DACs and preamps.
Third, if - as many audiophiles keep telling us - analog beats digital sources, you can never get a level playing field comparison, because there is no MCH analog.
As s result, the reason the best audio most people have ever heard is 2 channel is strictly related to MCH hardware and media restrictions, not because of inherent superiority of 2 channel.
All good points and generally agree...was just going to add that [for me], unfortunately not all things are equal. I prefer to concenrate all of my funds towards the absolute best 2-channel i can get...and within that, i have one source...in my case, digital. I promised myself no LP, no tape for the same reason....concentrating my efforts towards the best playback i could get...thus have elected to concentrate on 2 channel digital.
No doubt, would love to hear multi-channel set up well in my place. I know a former BBC engineer who has created some kind of crazy-custom 14-channel 360-degree domed shaped setup which he said has built-in delays to help create a sense of space such that you can create cathedrals and concerts within your living environment. Bet its cool, but for me (who can't even set up a router)...i am very happy to have what i've got right now.
...in honor of Dave Brubeck, playing my JVC K2 Remaster of Time Out.
Those are some very good points and observations, edorr. Interesting.
While I haven't heard a full fledged MCH setup in some time, the one thing that sounded not natural to me was having the background singers located behind me and to the sides of me. Sometimes the drummer or other instruments would do the same. It was a major distraction to me and I would hope that this has been considerably improved upon. Like Frantz, I admittedly have not pursued MC as much as I have 2-ch and what I had just mentioned is the main reason as to why.
Welcome to the forum, jonboi. Glad to see you here. I have heard a classical performance done over a MCH setup and I must say that my observations for that were positive. I enjoyed that immensely and it did seem to be a really good reproductive effort.
Tom
While I haven't heard a full fledged MCH setup in some time, the one thing that sounded not natural to me was having the background singers located behind me and to the sides of me. Sometimes the drummer or other instruments would do the same. It was a major distraction to me and I would hope that this has been considerably improved upon. Like Frantz, I admittedly have not pursued MC as much as I have 2-ch and what I had just mentioned is the main reason as to why.
Welcome to the forum, jonboi. Glad to see you here
. I have heard a classical performance done over a MCH setup and I must say that my observations for that were positive. I enjoyed that immensely and it did seem to be a really good reproductive effort. Tom
This is not a good MCH mix. In my experience, the surround channels in a good MCH music mix are almost like a very good and well integrated subwoofer. You don't actually notice they are there, but when you turn them off you immediately notice something is missing.
Ha-ha. That’s a good one Tom. Some people around here get quite upset over other people’s preferences. They like to argue about your preferences until they are blue in the face even though they don’t own your preferences and really don’t know what they sound like in their home. They also like to argue about what a spec sheet says vice what you are hearing.
Some people on this forum are so thin-skinned you can see right through them. They don’t mind chucking rocks just as long as no one chucks any back in their direction. Good luck with keeping peace and harmony in the sandbox with this thread Tom.
The economics of MCH is a different story altogether. If you have a $40K baseline 2 channel system and say a $20K budget, you can either upgrade to a $60K 2 channel system, or add $20K worth of center, surrounds, and LFE to your 2 channel system.
What is the best application of the $20K is a function of what you're listening to. If you're a diehard classical listener, this is a no brainer, because there is tons of good MCH content. If 95% of what you're listening to is only available on 2 channel (as is the case for most), you are better off upgrading your 2 channel rig than adding MCH.
...in honor of Dave Brubeck, playing my JVC K2 Remaster of Time Out.
Dave Brubeck has a pehnomenal MCH SACD out (Concord on a summer night). Let me pay tribute to him as well...
considering that 99% of the material I listen to from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and some 90's was mastered in stereo or mono, there is no need or interest for me to explore multi-channel.
Hello, edorr and thanks for your input. Would you happen to have any suggestions I could try out? Here's what I have found in my collection so far [you can tell I'm a 2-channel guy from the limited amount of MCH selections];
Roger Waters - In the Flesh
Johnny Cash - Silver
Diana Krall - The Girl in the Other Room
James Taylor - Hourglass
Toto - Toto IV
Al Di Meola - Flesh on Flesh
I may have more but they are mixed in with my collection. Would one of these be a good recording of a MCH performance or should I try something that you know is a good selection to try out?
Tom
From what you are listing here it appears you are limiting the choice to Rock / Pop (with the exception of Diane Krall / Al de Meola)? Tell me what genre you're looking for. Do you also have Blu Ray concert movie playback capability?
Most people who listen to my system have no idea they are listening to 6 speakers and four subwoofers. They do, however, think the center channel is on when it isn't.
MC/ambience recover 34 years with all sources, including vinyl. Again, it never ceases to amaze me that audiophiles who spend vast amounts of money on 2 channel and who have an ongoing obsession with the perception of sound never learn the basics of acoustics to understand the difference between 2 channel and multi channel and insist that 2 channel does it all, or that multichannel is about having discrete sounds rotating around the room. Converting a flat earther is a pretty thankless task, but I guess the topic is a periodic thrasher on the boards. There are also those who have set up MC improperly, or for home theater effects, and they often say that they went back to two channel. I think they just regard imaging as the whole ball of wax, and prefer localization effects to acoustic authenticity.
It is also strange to read about audiophiles who struggle with many issues with two channel that are easily solved by MC, but they continue thinking that they just need to keep beating on their two channel system to get it to do things that it cannot or cannot do well.
MC/ambience recover 34 years with all sources, including vinyl. Again, it never ceases to amaze me that audiophiles who spend vast amounts of money on 2 channel and who have an ongoing obsession with the perception of sound never learn the basics of acoustics to understand the difference between 2 channel and multi channel and insist that 2 channel does it all, or that multichannel is about having discrete sounds rotating around the room. Converting a flat earther is a pretty thankless task, but I guess the topic is a periodic thrasher on the boards. There are also those who have set up MC improperly, or for home theater effects, and they often say that they went back to two channel. I think they just regard imaging as the whole ball of wax, and prefer localization effects to acoustic authenticity.
It is also strange to read about audiophiles who struggle with many issues with two channel that are easily solved by MC, but they continue thinking that they just need to keep beating on their two channel system to get it to do things that it cannot or cannot do well.
Genre really doesn't matter at all to me when it comes to a good recording or performance but I will add that I do not prefer rap or opera. I'm good with anything else. As far as Blu-Ray? I can alsways take my BDP and bring it with me for an audition. I currently do not have a MCH system, I sold mine off years ago. With that said, I shouldn't have any issues finding a MCH system worthy of trying out...at least in theory.
Tom
From the top of my head, a few favourites on MCH are (leaving out the classical stuff):
SACD:
Chick Corea: Rendez Vous in New York
The Who: Tommy
David Brubeck: Concord on a Summer Night
DVD-A:
Crosby & Nash: Another Stoney Evening
Blu Ray:
Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Hall
Return to Forever: Live in Montreux
The multichannel sound system I built for my own use addresses problems of reproducing large room acoustics in a small room conventional multichannel systems don't. 1) the required acoustics are largely not in the recording and to what small degree they are they are inadequate by themselves. The reverberant acoustic field has many components arriving from many different directions. Not only is this aspect of them lost to the recording but what little is there due to microphones being placed close to the instruments can't be separated from the direct sound. Some of the direct field will therefore be heard from the speakers that are supposed to reproduce only the reverberant field. This flaw alone was enough to be a deal breaker for me insofar as quadraphonic sound and its like are concerned. 2) as soon as you point the speaker that's supposed to reproduce the reverberant field at yourself, IMO your goose is cooked. Put your ear up to a wall whether in your own listening room, a concert hall, cathedral and what do you hear coming from the wall? Nothing. The intensity of sound coming from any one direction is so low it's inaudible. But put all of it together and that's almost everything you hear. That's what you have to arrive at to duplicate it and it's no easy trick. If you can hear where the speakers are that are intended to reproduce the reverberant field, you've failed as I see it.
The best rooms to even try it in I've found are those of approximately the same proportions and shape as concert halls and the like themselves, rectangles with no large discontinuities of reflective surfaces. Even so it's not an easy illusion to create. But when it works......
The best rooms to even try it in I've found are those of approximately the same proportions and shape as concert halls and the like themselves, rectangles with no large discontinuities of reflective surfaces. Even so it's not an easy illusion to create. But when it works......
Similar threads
